Dismissed with Prejudice

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Chikezie Ottah’s infringement claim against Fiat, Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, and other auto manufacturers — holding it not infringed.

Acting pro se, Ottah alleged that his U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (“book holder”) was being infringed by the back-up cameras installed on various vehicles. The problem for Ottah is that the Federal Circuit previously ruled that the patent claim language (“removable attachment”) coupled with prosecution history statements meant that the claims only covered attachments removable by hand — all of the accused devices required specialized tools for removal.

Even after liberally construing the pleadings (for pro se benefit), the court found no plausible claim based upon the patent — as such the dismissal with prejudice was proper.

Have these machines made up their minds as to what they want and when they want it? Do such sentient machines even exist? Would not the requirement for actual sentience be in play in order for your (assumed and implicit) use of any type of Mental Steps doctrine to even apply?

Please use those short, direct English sentences that you are always on about – for others – to convey that “oh so serious” point of yours.

At times, one really have to scratch one’s head to figure out how anybody who had “invented” a book holder for mobile devices such as wheelchairs whose sole distinction over the prior art was its removal attachment capability and structure can, with any credibility, argue that backup cameras on cars can infringe.